The Invisible Glue: Why Process Fairness is Non-Negotiable in the Oil and Gas Industry

kapilramjattan
Feb 4
7 min read

By Kapil Ramjattan | K Networks & Security | #GuyanaDigitalFuture

Process fairness, often an unseen force, acts as the invisible glue that keeps a company calm, predictable, and trusted. When it’s missing, an organization is essentially holding a receipt for problems that haven’t yet surfaced. This concept is particularly critical in high-stakes environments like the oil and gas industry, where the consequences of systemic failures can be catastrophic.

The Chain Reaction of Unfairness

The absence of process fairness initiates a detrimental chain reaction within any organization:

1.No fairness → no trust: If decisions appear random, secretive, or biased, employees lose trust in leadership. They may assume favoritism or hidden agendas, leading to doubt even in sound decisions. Once trust erodes, the entire organizational structure becomes fragile.

2.No trust → disengagement: When employees perceive unfair processes, they cease to speak up, take initiative, or go the extra mile. This manifests in sentiments like, “Why bother? They already decided.” This quiet disengagement precedes more visible organizational problems.

3.Disengagement → resistance and workarounds: Initial disengagement evolves into subtle resistance. Employees may follow rules mechanically, create informal workarounds, and prioritize self-protection over company objectives. The official system becomes a mere formality, while the real work operates through an underground, unofficial system.

4.Resistance → conflict and blame: Without fair processes, decisions are often personalized, leading to feelings of being targeted (“They did this to me”). Feedback is perceived as punishment, and disagreements escalate into emotional conflicts. The focus shifts from debating ideas to questioning intentions, resulting in tense meetings and political communications.

5.Conflict → talent loss and risk: Ultimately, high-performing employees, who have other options, depart. Remaining staff become cynical, and ethical shortcuts may seem justified due to perceived unfairness. This stage is characterized by increased compliance failures, a rise in safety incidents, and a higher likelihood of lawsuits and scandals. The company’s failure is not sudden but a slow, earned consequence of neglecting fairness.

This entire progression is a “receipt” because process unfairness invariably leaves a trail, accumulates interest over time, and guarantees a future cost, even if it’s not immediately apparent. The negative outcomes are already paid for, awaiting their manifestation.

Process Fairness in the Oil and Gas Sector: Pros and Cons

The oil and gas industry, with its inherent risks and complex operations, stands to gain significantly from robust process fairness, but also faces unique challenges in its implementation.

Pros of Process Fairness in Oil and Gas:

•Enhanced Safety Culture: Fair processes in incident investigation, safety protocol development, and disciplinary actions foster an environment where employees feel safe reporting hazards and near misses without fear of unjust reprisal. This transparency is crucial for preventing major accidents.

•Improved Operational Integrity: Clear, consistent, and equitable procedures for maintenance, operations, and change management lead to more reliable systems and reduced downtime. When processes are perceived as fair, adherence increases, minimizing operational risks.

•Better Regulatory Compliance: Organizations with strong process fairness frameworks are more likely to consistently meet stringent industry regulations. Fair internal audits and transparent reporting mechanisms ensure compliance is embedded in daily operations rather than being a reactive measure.

•Increased Employee Engagement and Retention: A fair workplace cultivates trust and loyalty. Employees who believe they are treated justly are more engaged, productive, and less likely to seek opportunities elsewhere, reducing turnover in a highly specialized workforce.

•Reduced Risk of Incidents and Lawsuits: By addressing grievances fairly and transparently, companies can mitigate internal conflicts before they escalate into costly legal battles or contribute to operational failures.

Cons/Challenges of Implementing Process Fairness in Oil and Gas:

•Complex Regulatory Environment: The industry operates under a myriad of national and international regulations, which can sometimes create bureaucratic hurdles that complicate the implementation of universally fair processes.

•High-Risk Operations and Pressure for Quick Decisions: The critical nature of oil and gas operations often demands rapid decision-making, which can inadvertently bypass thorough, fair processes if not carefully managed.

•Hierarchical Structures: Traditional hierarchical structures prevalent in some parts of the industry can hinder open communication and feedback, making it challenging to establish truly participative and fair decision-making processes.

•Global Operations and Diverse Cultural Norms: Operating across different countries and cultures means navigating varied perceptions of fairness and justice, requiring adaptable yet consistent approaches to process implementation.

•Economic Pressures and Market Volatility: Fluctuations in oil prices and economic downturns can lead to cost-cutting measures or workforce reductions, which, if not handled with extreme process fairness, can severely damage employee morale and trust.

Wrongful Termination: A Consequence of Unfair Processes

Wrongful termination, a stark example of process unfairness, can have severe repercussions for both the individual and the company. In the oil and gas industry, such cases often arise from discriminatory practices or a failure to adhere to established disciplinary procedures.

For instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has pursued cases against major oil and gas companies for employment discrimination. One notable case involved ExxonMobil, which was sued for failing to address racial harassment after a Black employee found a hangman’s noose at a worksite. The EEOC alleged that ExxonMobil failed to adequately investigate this and prior similar instances, demonstrating a lack of fair process in addressing workplace conduct and protecting employees . Another case saw the EEOC filing a lawsuit against Valero for disability discrimination, alleging the company discharged an employee for failing a reading test without providing reasonable accommodation prior to termination . These examples highlight how a breakdown in fair processes, whether in addressing harassment, providing accommodations, or conducting investigations, can directly lead to wrongful termination claims.

Signposts: What Employees Need to Know

For employees in the oil and gas industry, recognizing the presence or absence of process fairness is crucial for assessing their workplace environment. Here are some key signposts, adapted from critical questions an employee might ask:

Healthy Signals (Indications of Process Fairness):

•Change Management: The company mentions a clear Management of Change (MOC) process, thorough testing, peer reviews, and robust rollback plans for system changes. There's a clear distinction between urgent and non-urgent changes.

•Incident Analysis: Discussions about incidents focus on systemic issues (e.g., alarms, design flaws, communication breakdowns) and emphasize learning and prevention, rather than individual blame.

•Alarm Management: There are established practices for alarm rationalization, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for alarm rates, and a commitment to continuous improvement in alarm systems.

•Post-Incident Response: The organization conducts blameless post-mortems, root cause analyses, and implements process or design changes based on findings.

•Knowledge Sharing: The company utilizes runbooks, diagrams, wikis, cross-training, and shadowing to share system knowledge, avoiding reliance on single individuals.

•On-Call & Workload: There's a clear on-call rotation, a distinction between critical and convenience calls, and policies for compensatory time or recovery.

•Leadership Values: Leadership prioritizes stability, safety, and prevention, and measures success through system health metrics rather than just rapid response to failures.

•Psychological Safety: Employees can share examples where pushing back on unsafe or rushed changes was respected and supported by leadership.

•Performance & Promotions: Clear criteria exist for performance and promotions, incorporating a mix of technical, process, and teamwork metrics.

•Recognition: Recognition is given for team efforts and preventive improvements, not just for

heroic fixes.

Red Flags (Indications of Process Unfairness):

•Change Management: Vague answers like “It depends” with no structure, or statements such as “We just fix it live if it’s broken,” or laughing off issues with “SCADA is always changing.”

•Incident Analysis: Naming individuals or teams as the most common cause of incidents, or blaming “People messing with the system” or “Field operators don’t know what they’re doing.” This indicates a blame-oriented culture where blame travels downward.

•Alarm Management: Statements like “Operators just ignore those,” “We silence them when needed,” or a complete lack of metrics on alarm frequency. This suggests that if alarms are noise, safety is already compromised.

•Post-Incident Response: Responses such as “We move on quickly,” “Management handles that,” or “Depends on who caused it,” indicating a lack of thorough investigation and learning.

•Knowledge Sharing: Relying on informal learning like “You’ll learn as you go,” “Ask whoever’s on shift,” or naming specific individuals who “know everything.” This single-point knowledge creates a fragile system prone to future outages.

•On-Call & Workload: Phrases like “You get used to it” or “It’s part of the job,” with no data on call frequency, suggesting an unsustainable workload and lack of support.

•Leadership Values: Leadership primarily valuing “Fast response” and celebrating outages fixed rather than outages avoided, indicating a reactive rather than proactive safety culture.

•Psychological Safety: Statements like “That doesn’t really happen” when asked about pushing back on unsafe changes, or “We’re expected to make it work,” which instantly exposes a lack of psychological safety.

•Performance & Promotions: Vague answers, “Management decides,” or favoring visibility over actual impact in evaluations.

•Recognition: Recognizing “The ones who save the day” or “Whoever management sees,” which fosters a hero culture rather than acknowledging systemic improvements.

The One Question That Reveals Everything

To truly gauge the presence of process fairness, consider asking: “What would frustrate a strong SCADA engineer in their first 6 months here?”

•Healthy signals: An honest, self-aware answer that mentions real constraints and challenges within the system.

•Red flags: Responses like “Nothing really” or an overly polished, evasive answer. If an organization cannot admit its pain points, it is likely hiding them.

How to Listen (This Matters More Than the Questions)

Beyond the questions themselves, the manner in which responses are delivered can be highly revealing. Watch for:

•Defensive tone: Indicates underlying issues or a fear of transparency.

•Jokes masking dysfunction: Often used to deflect from serious problems.

•“That’s just how it is” language: Suggests resignation to systemic flaws rather than a commitment to improvement.

•Overuse of individual names instead of systems: Points to a culture of blame rather than systemic analysis.

These are critical “tells” that can provide deeper insight into the true state of process fairness within an organization.

K-Thoughts

Process fairness is not merely a theoretical concept; it is a fundamental pillar for organizational health, especially in demanding industries like oil and gas. Its presence fosters trust, engagement, and a proactive safety culture, while its absence guarantees a slow but inevitable decline into disengagement, conflict, and increased risk. By understanding and actively promoting process fairness, companies can build resilient, ethical, and ultimately more successful operations.